Friday, February 24, 2012

The Drum's Lawyer-Support Scheme

THE DRUM, that grease trap for piffle which the ABC can squeeze in nowhere else, recently ran into a little trouble when a contributor was allowed to amplify Marieke Hardy's allegations against an entirely innocent blogger she accused of cyber-stalking. Drum editor Jonathan Green received a private, good-natured warning more than a month before the writ arrived that the column amounted to an open invitation to sue, but that warning went unheeded -- quite possibly because it was the advice of a conservative and, as such, had to be rejected as a matter of pinata-whacking principle. Given that precedent there is probably no point in alerting Green to any further potential liabilities his contributors incur when allowed to use the ABC's pulpit for slagging people they do not like. Still, as the ABC's payments to victorious plaintiffs are drawn on the public purse, attempting to save taxpayers the expense of another settlement is probably worth a shot. Here it is:

Jonathan: the warmist Clive Hamilton has slandered James Cook University's Bob Carter in a rant which has, just this morning, been published on your site. Here is the bit that would concern your editors, if you had any:

There is a direct Australian link in the Heartland Institute files. Bob Carter, an adjunct research professor at James Cook University, has a long-standing record of denying climate science. Now it is revealed that he is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, to the tune of $1,667 per month for unspecified work. On his personal webpage, Carter declares that "he receives no research funding from special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments," a claim that on the scale of truth matches his reporting of climate science.

Translated, the scientist Carter is no better than a propagandist for disputing the methods and findings of those other scientists whose opinions Hamilton finds more to his alarmist liking. Further, Carter is accused, and accused blatantly, of being the low sort of person who would lie ("a claim on the scale of truth") in return for petty cash. Then add misrepresentation to the mix -- Carter is not paid by Heartland for "research", but as a source of expert opinion -- and what has just been published on the Drum amounts to an invitation for readers to hold Carter in contempt.

If Carter has not heard from lawyers already, it is a fair bet they will be in touch very soon.

UPDATE: While Hamilton demands the IPA reveal its donors, he was less keen on naming those who supported his own Australia Foundation. From the Silly in 2003:

"We don't schmooze and we don't lobby," he says. "We are not politically well-connected and we prefer it that way. We sometimes take up policy issues - such as private health insurance, the US-Australia free trade agreement, climate change and tax policy - but increasingly we inquire into social change."Hamilton, too, is coy about benefactors but claims they do not attach strings to funding. He says the institute has a mixed group of board members whose opinions do not necessarily tally with research findings.

The Silly then goes on to list known Hamiliton backers -- "NSW Environmental Protection Agency, BP, AGL, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and Greenpeace". Whether Hamilton revealed these names or if they were uncovered by the reporter is not made clear.

Perthaps Hamilton would like to explain why those donors do not call his own credibility into question, especially the money handed over by the warmists at ACF and Greenpeace.

After all, the defamations that occur on The Drum are invariably by screeching leftists against right wingers.

If the victims sue and win, it's a straight transfer of wealth from the ABC's finite budget into the pockets of upstanding folk like Bob Carter.

End result - less money wasted on The Drum as the ABC finally wises up to what a litigation magnet it is, a few bob into Prof Carter's pocket so he can enjoy an overseas trip, extension to his home etc etc on the taxpayer's dime.

Assuming that Carter has been defamed, there is the issue of whether the claim is actionable, and this has two aspects. The first is that the extent of the common law or statutory action in defamation, where the subjcet matter of the statement concerns 'political communication' (as this ones probably does), is limited by the High Court's invention of a guarantee of freedom of political communication. The extent of this limitation is far from clear, and some of the current crop of HC judges would probably like to extend it. The second point can be encapsulated in the question: does Bob Carter have the resources to engage in a litigation lottery that might well end up in the High Court? Where the plaintiff is an ordinary bloke or sheila, and the defendant has acess to a deep pocket or free legal aid, it is routine for the latter's lawyers to cause (or merely threaten to cause) the plaintiff to incur costs.

"Bob Carter, an adjunct research professor at James Cook University, has a long-standing record of denying climate science."Alleging that Professor Carter is behaving unprofessionally in supplying his professional opinion to Heartland's NIPCC project is actionable."Now it is revealed that he is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, to the tune of $1,667 per month for unspecified work." Carter's editing work for $20,000 p.a. was specified."Carter declares that 'he receives no research funding from special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments,' a claim that on the scale of truth matches his reporting of climate science."The extent of Carter's success in the case against Hamilton simply depends on the legal resources he wishes to allocate.

What is it about these warmist, alarmist, so called subject matter experts that make them so smug and self righteous? Are they afraid of differing opinions getting an airing, being read by the general populace? It is obvious that Prof. Carter is not interested in the politics, only the science, and empirical evidence at that not some cooked up computer models. How can anyone condone a carbon dioxide tax, even those who are green at heart when it will do not reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide one iota? Politics has a lot to answer for.

Not just The Drum- ABC "News" "24" spent the entire day until 7PM when presumably either the cease and desist letter or the writ arrived describing ALREADY ACQUITTED (they were reporting his acquittal!) Gabe Watson as "The Honeymoon Killer".

I repeat- calling him The Honeymoon Killer... during their newsbite about his acquittal.